Final environmental impact statement: light goose management

              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Light Goose Management
June 2007
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
Light Goose Management
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Director
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Main Interior Building
1849 C Street
Washington, DC 20240
FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Kelley, Jr., EIS Project Manager
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
BH Whipple Federal Building
1 Federal Dr.
Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056
(612) 713-5409
James_R_Kelley@fws.gov
Robert Blohm, Chief
Division of Migratory Bird Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mail Stop MBSP - 4107
4401 N. Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 358-1714
Executive Summary
Light Goose Management FEIS ii
Executive Summary
The term “light geese” refers collectively to three taxa of geese that have light coloration: greater
snow geese, Ross’s geese, and lesser snow geese. Various light goose populations in North America have
experienced rapid population growth, and have reached levels such that they are damaging habitats on their
arctic and subarctic breeding areas. Habitat degradation in arctic and subarctic areas may be irreversible, and
has negatively impacted light goose populations and other bird populations dependent on such. Natural
marsh habitats on some migration and wintering areas also have been impacted by light geese. In addition,
goose damage to agricultural crops has become a problem. There is increasing evidence that lesser snow and
Ross’s geese act as reservoirs for the bacterium that causes avian cholera. The threat of avian cholera to
other bird species likely will increase as light goose populations expand. The management goal for light
geese in the mid-continent region is to reduce the population by 50% from the level observed in the late
1990s. The management goal for greater snow geese is to reduce the population to 500,000 birds. We
believe these population levels are more compatible with the ability of habitats to support them. This
document describes various alternatives for the purpose of reducing and stabilizing specific populations of
light geese in North America. We analyzed five management alternatives: A) no action; B) modify harvest
regulation option and refuge management (PREFERRED); C) implement direct agency control of light goose
populations on migration and wintering areas in the U.S.; D) seek direct light goose population control on
breeding grounds in Canada; E) two-phased approach to light goose population control. Phase one of
alternative E is identical to alternative B, whereas phase two includes elements of alternatives C and D.
Under Alternative E, if implementation of phase one was not successful in reducing light goose populations
we would assess the need to implement phase two. Alternatives were analyzed with regard to their potential
impacts on light geese, other bird species, special status species, socioeconomics, historical resources, and
cultural resources.
Table of Contents
Light Goose Management FEIS iii
CHAPTER 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of Action...............................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Need for Action..................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 Background ........................................................................................................................................................2
1.4.1 Background Relevant to Need for Proposed Action....................................................................................2
1.4.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service....................................................................................................................3
1.4.3 Canadian Wildlife Service..........................................................................................................................3
1.4.4 Other Environmental Assessments and Rulemakings .................................................................................3
1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement........................................................................................................................4
1.5.1 Summary of Scoping Efforts.......................................................................................................................4
1.5.2 Issues and Concerns Identified During Scoping..........................................................................................5
1.6 Policy, Authority, and Legal Compliance ...........................................................................................................6
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................9
ALTERNATIVES..............................................................................................................................................................9
2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................9
2.2 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study...........................................................................9
2.2.1 Establish a depredation order ......................................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Egg removal ...............................................................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Permit the use of lead shot to take light geese...........................................................................................10
2.2.4 Permit the use of rifles and/or pistols ........................................................................................................10
2.2.5 Remove the Federal migratory bird hunting stamp requirement during normal season
frameworks...............................................................................................................................................11
2.2.6 Permit the use of reciprocal State hunting licenses ...................................................................................11
2.2.7 Permit the use of live decoys to take light geese.......................................................................................11
2.2.8 Permit the use of baiting to take light geese..............................................................................................11
2.2.9 Apply dove baiting regulations to regulations for hunting light geese.....................................................12
2.2.10 Allow rallying or herding of light geese with the aid of a motorized vehicle or device...........................12
2.2.11 Provide supplemental food to light geese on breeding areas.....................................................................13
2.2.12 Alter U.S. farm policies to promote reduction of foods
available to light geese on wintering and migration areas........................................................................13
2.2.13 Control light goose populations through use of reproductive inhibitors ...................................................13
2.2.14 Allow commercial harvesting of light geese .............................................................................................14
2.2.15 Allow predators to control light goose populations...................................................................................14
2.3 Rationale for Design of Analyzed Alternatives.................................................................................................15
2.4 Description of Alternatives ...............................................................................................................................15
2.4.1 Alternative A. No Action. Continue to manage light goose populations through existing
wildlife management policies and practices..............................................................................................................15
2.4.2 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ............................................................................................................................................................16
2.4.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. .......................................................................................................................................................18
2.4.4 Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. ...................19
2.4.5 Alternative E . Two-phased Approach to Light Goose Population Control. .................................................20
2.3.6 Light Goose Population Monitoring..........................................................................................................23
2.3.7 Current Light Goose Regulations..............................................................................................................24
2.5 Comparison of Analyzed Alternatives ..............................................................................................................24
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................26
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................................................26
3.0 INCORPORATION OF NEW INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER PUBLICATION OF DEIS................26
3.1 LIGHT GEESE ................................................................................................................................................29
3.1.1 Definition .................................................................................................................................................29
3.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Species...........................................................................................................29
3.1.3 Population Delineation.............................................................................................................................32
3.1.4 Population Surveys...................................................................................................................................35
3.1.5 Population Status - Historical Accounts....................................................................................................36
Table of Contents
Light Goose Management FEIS iv
3.1.6 Population Status - Spring/Breeding Colony Survey Estimates ................................................................38
3.1.7 Population Status - Winter Survey Indices................................................................................................43
3.1.8 Population Status - Summary....................................................................................................................47
3.1.9 Impacts of breeding habitat degradation on light geese ............................................................................48
3.1.10 Migration and Wintering Ecology.............................................................................................................49
3.1.11 Harvest Estimates......................................................................................................................................53
3.2 HABITAT ........................................................................................................................................................58
3.2.1 Breeding habitat conditions and degradation ...................................................................................................58
3.2.2 Migration and wintering habitat conditions and degradation...........................................................................66
3.3 OTHER BIRD SPECIES..................................................................................................................................70
3.3.1 Waterfowl.................................................................................................................................................70
3.3.2 Other bird species.....................................................................................................................................71
3.3.3 Special Status Species ...............................................................................................................................72
3.4 AVIAN CHOLERA .........................................................................................................................................74
3.5 SOCIOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................77
3.5.1 Economic impact of light goose hunting in the U.S.........................................................................................77
3.5.2 Economic impact of non-consumptive uses of light geese...............................................................................78
3.5.3 Subsistence uses of light geese.........................................................................................................................78
3.6 National Wildlife Refuge System......................................................................................................................79
3.7 Historical and Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................................83
CHAPTER 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................85
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......................................................................................................................85
4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................85
4.2 Impacts on Light Geese....................................................................................................................................85
4.2.1 Alternative A. No action. .........................................................................................................................85
4.2.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ............................................................................................................................................................88
4.2.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. .......................................................................................................................................................96
4.2.4 Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. ....................99
4.2.5 Alternative E. Two-phased Approach to Light Goose Population Control. ................................................101
4.3 Impacts on Habitat .........................................................................................................................................105
4.3.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................105
4.3.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ..........................................................................................................................................................108
4.3.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. .....................................................................................................................................................109
4.3.4 Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. .................109
4.3.5 Alternative E. Two-phased approach to light goose population control..................................................109
4.4 Impacts on Other Species...............................................................................................................................110
4.4.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................110
4.4.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ..........................................................................................................................................................111
4.4.3. Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. .....................................................................................................................................................113
4.4.4 Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. ..................114
4.4.5 Alternative E. Two-phased approach to light goose population control.......................................................114
4.5 Impacts on Special Status Species...................................................................................................................114
4.5.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................114
4.5.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ..........................................................................................................................................................115
4.5.3. Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. .....................................................................................................................................................117
4.5.4. Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. .................117
4.5.5 Alternative E. Two-phased approach to light goose population control..................................................118
4.6 Socioeconomic Impacts..................................................................................................................................118
4.6.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................119
Table of Contents
Light Goose Management FEIS v
4.6.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................119
4.6.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ..........................................................................................................................................121
4.6.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. .....................................................................................................................................123
4.6.4 Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. .................125
4.6.5 Alternative E. Two-phased approach to light goose population control.................................................129
4.7 Waste and Disposal of Geese ..........................................................................................................................129
4.7.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................129
4.7.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ..........................................................................................................................................129
4.7.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration areas
in the U.S................................................................................................................................................130
4.7.4. Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. .................130
4.7.5 Alternative E. Two-phased approach to light goose population control.................................................131
4.8 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................................................131
4.8.1 Alternative A. No action. .......................................................................................................................131
4.8.2 Alternative B. (Preferred alternative). Modify harvest regulation options and refuge
management. ..........................................................................................................................................132
4.8.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control on wintering and migration areas
in the U.S................................................................................................................................................132
4.8.4. Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on breeding grounds in Canada. .................132
4.8.5 Alternative E. Two-phased approach to light goose population control.................................................133
4.9 Impacts on Historical and Cultural Resources ................................................................................................133
4.10 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................................................133
CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................................................................137
LIST OF PREPARERS..................................................................................................................................................137
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................137
CHAPTER 6 ..................................................................................................................................................................138
LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM COPEIS OF THE DEIS WERE
SENT...............................................................................................................................................................................138
State/Provincial Agencies ......................................................................................................................................138
Organizations .........................................................................................................................................................139
Tribal and Private individuals................................................................................................................................140
CHAPTER 7 ..................................................................................................................................................................141
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DEIS AND SERVICE RESPONSE ..................................................................................141
7.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................141
7.2 Comments from Federal Agencies ..................................................................................................................141
7.3 Comments from Flyway Councils...................................................................................................................144
7.4 Comments from State and Provincial Wildlife Agencies................................................................................147
7.5 Comments from State Representatives............................................................................................................153
7.6 Comments from Tribal Groups .......................................................................................................................154
7.7 Comments from Private Individuals................................................................................................................156
7.8 Comments from Private Organizations ...........................................................................................................170
CHAPTER 8 ..................................................................................................................................................................194
LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................................................194
Light Goose Management FEIS vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement…………………………………. 204
Appendix 2 Notice of Meetings…...���……………………………………........................................................ 209
Appendix 3 Environmental Protection Agency Rating of Lack of Objection to Draft EIS on Light Goose
Management………………………………….…...………………………………………………. 213
Appendix 4 Maps of distribution of light goose harvest in the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific
Flyway……………………………………………………… …..………………………………… 215
Appendix 5 Light goose conservation order regulations...................…………………………………………... 223
Appendix 6 Light goose permit regulations……………………………………………………………………. 231
Appendix 7 Historical light goose harvest regulations in the U.S……………………………………………… 237
Appendix 8 Regional listing of special status species that overlap in geographic range with various
populations of light geese in Service Regions 1-7………………………………………………… 241
Light Goose Management FEIS vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 3.1 Primary geographic distribution of greater and lesser snow and Ross's geese ……………………. 29
Fig. 3.2 Boundaries of administrative Flyways…………………………………………………………….... 30
Fig. 3.3 Major Arctic and subarctic geographic features referenced in text…………………………………. 32
Fig. 3.4 Geographic distribution of the Mid-Continent Population and Western Central Flyway
Population of light geese……………………………………………………………..........................33
Fig. 3.5 Primary geographic distribution of the Western Population of Ross's geese and the Pacific
Flyway Population of lesser snow geese …………………………………………………………….34
Fig. 3.6 Primary geographic distribution of the Wrangel Island Population of lesser snow geese..………….35
Fig. 3.7 Population growth of greater snow geese as measured by photo-inventories during spring
migration in the St. Lawrence River valley, 1965-2000…………………………………………….. 39
Fig. 3.8 Lesser snow goose population estimates from breeding colonies in the eastern Arctic,
determined from photo inventories, 1973-97…………………………………………………..……. 40
Fig. 3.9 Light (lesser snow and Ross’s) goose population estimates from breeding colonies in the
central Arctic, determined from photo inventories, 1966-98………………………………….……. 42
Fig. 3.10 Lesser snow goose population estimates from breeding colonies in the western Arctic,
determined from photo inventories, 1976-2002……………………………………………….…….. 42
Fig. 3.11 Winter index of greater snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway, 1955-2003……………………………. 43
Fig. 3.12 Winter index of the Mid-Continent Population of light geese, 1970-2003…………………………..44
Fig. 3.13 Winter index of the Western Central Flyway Population of light geese, 1970-2003……………….. 45
Fig. 3.14 Winter index of Central/Mississippi Flyway (CMF) light geese, 1955-2003………………………. 46
Fig. 3.15 Winter index of light geese in the Pacific Flyway, 1955-2003……………………………………… 47
Fig. 3.16 Original coastal marsh wintering range (black shading), extent of initial range expansion,
and recent wintering range boundary of light geese in Texas and Louisiana………………………..51
Fig. 3.17 Harvest of greater snow geese in Canada and the U.S., 1967-02…………………………………… 54
Fig. 3.18 Spring population estimates (millions, 1964-2002) and harvest rate indices (1967-2002) of
greater snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway………………………………………...…………………54
Fig. 3.19 Winter indices and harvest rates of Central/Mississippi Flyway light geese, 1962-2002……………55
Fig. 3.20 Winter indices and harvests of Central/Mississippi Flyway light geese and active adult
hunter numbers, 1962-2002…………………………………………………………………………. 56
Fig. 3.21 Left: Banding locations of CMF light geese (summarized by degree blocks) harvested
during conservation orders in the U.S. Right: Recovery locations of light geese harvested
during conservation orders in the Central and Mississippi Flyways………………………………….58
Fig. 3.22 Negative feedback loop between light geese and their habitat; which leads to habitat destruction …60
Light Goose Management FEIS viii
Fig. 3.23 Increase in the proportion of bare soil resulting from degradation of habitat by light geese on each of
3 intertidal marshes at La Perouse Bay, Manitoba from 1986 to 1997……………………...……….61
Fig. 3.24 Example of light goose habitat destruction at La Perouse Bay, Manitoba. Empty pond
basin at right was caused by goose grubbing activity. Red plants surrounding dead willow
trees are salt-tolerant species…………………………………………………………………………62
Fig. 3.25 Goose exclosure plot at La Perouse Bay, Manitoba. Green vegetation is enclosed by
fencing that prevents geese from feeding in plot. Areas devoid of vegetation outside
of plot were exposed to goose feeding and are characterized by mudflats and exposed gravel……..62
Fig. 3.26 Satellite imagery of the cumulative damage at La Perouse Bay caused by light geese
during 1973-93……………………………………………………………………………………..…64
Fig. 3.27 Additional area (hectares) of salt marsh vegetation decline at La Perouse Bay after 1973 when
monitoring began. Actual loss of vegetation was determined by comparison of satellite imagery
from 1973, 1984, and 1993……………………………….………………………………………���.64
Fig. 3.28 Documented decline of semi-palmated sandpiper and red-necked phalarope nests on permanent
study plots at La Perouse Bay, Manitoba, 1983-99………………………………………………….72
Fig. 3.29 Location of whooping crane sightings in the Central Flyway, 1943-99……………………………..73
Fig. 3.30 Temporal distribution of whooping crane sightings in Nebraska, 1919-2000……………………….74
Fig. 3.31 Location of recurring avian cholera outbreaks and associated waterfowl migration pathways…….. 75
Fig. 3.32 Frequency of occurrence of avian cholera outbreaks in the U.S……………………………………..76
Fig. 4.1 Trajectories of the greater snow goose population resulting from implementation of various
harvest rates (expressed as %), in relation to a population goal of 500,000 birds. Trajectories
begin with the preliminary spring 2006 population estimate of 1,016,900 birds…………………….91
Fig. 4.2 Projection of additional hectares of salt marsh vegetation that would be lost at La Perouse
Bay in the absence of light goose population control……………………………………………….106
Light Goose Management FEIS ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 General categories of issues and concerns identified during the light goose EIS scoping
process.…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Table 2.1 Summary of management alternatives to be analyzed…...………………………………………... 25
Table 3.1 Distribution of legband recoveries for lesser snow and Ross’s geese banded in the western,
central, and eastern Arctic by decade, 1950-98…...………………………………………………. 31
Table 3.2 Breeding adult lesser snow and Ross’s goose population estimates as estimated from aerial
photo inventories, 1966-99 (compiled by R. Kerbes, CWS). Inclusion of estimates of non-breeding
adults would increase population estimates by 30%…..………………………………… 41
Table 3.3 Parameters used to estimate harvest rates of greater snow geese, 1999-2004…………………….. 53
Table 3.4 Estimated U.S. light goose (lesser snow and Ross’s goose) harvests during regular season and
conservation order periods in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (combined) during 1998-
2002………………………………………………………………………………………………... 57
Table 3.5 Compensation paid to farmers in Quebec as a result of crop damages due to grazing by greater
snow geese (Filion et al. 1998)……………………………………………………………………. 67
Table 3.6 Locally declining populations of other avian species in the La Pérouse Bay area. Bold indicates
a significant decline (Rockwell et al. 1997b)……………………………………………………… 71
Table 3.7 Light goose harvest in the U.S during 1997/98, and the proportion of the $146 million total
economic impact generated by light goose hunting distributed among Flyways……………...….. 77
Table 3.8 Peak population estimates for greater snow geese on National Wildlife Refuges in Region 5,
1994-99…...……………………………………………………………………………………….. 80
Table 3.9 Refuges in Region 5 that receive snow goose use, and the proportion of each refuge open to
hunting (USFWS, unpublished data)……………………………...…………………………….… 81
Table 3.10 Average number of annual use/days by light geese on selected refuges in the southern portion of
the Central and Mississippi Flyways (USFWS, unpublished data)……………………………….. 81
Table 3.11 Examples of changes in management on various National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and impacts
on light goose harvest (USFWS, unpublished data)…………………………………………...….. 82
Table 3.12 Average number of annual use-days by light geese on selected refuges in the Pacific Flyway
(USFWS, unpublished data)……………………………………………………………………….. 84
Table 4.1 Impacts of liberalization in methods of take (electronic calls, unplugged shotguns) on harvest
of lesser snow geese (LSGO), Ross’s geese (ROGO), and total light geese (LSGO plus ROGO)
in 1999 and 2000, versus mean harvest for the same calendar periods in late winter/spring
1996-98……………………………………………………………………………………………. 89
Table 4.2 Estimated impacts resulting from implementation of new light goose (lesser snow and Ross’s
geese) harvest regulations in the U.S. portion of the Central and Mississippi Flyways…………... 89
Table 4.3 Estimated impact of reducing the population of greater snow geese to 500,000 birds by
authorizing new regulations in the U.S. to increase harvest…..…………………………………... 91
Light Goose Management FEIS x
Table 4.4 Projected continental harvest and harvest rate of greater snow geese if special regulations had
been implemented in the U.S. portion of the Atlantic Flyway, 1992-2002.………………………. 92
Table 4.5 Estimation of the number of Central/Mississippi Flyway light geese that would need to be
removed on an annual basis by direct agency control in order to achieve a 50% reduction in
number of geese…………………………………………………………………………………… 98
Table 4.6 Potential economic impact of closure of light goose hunting in each Flyway, based on losses
of trip-related expenditures by hunters……………………………………………………………. 120
Table 4.7 Potential economic impact of trip-related expenditures during an extended time in which to
take light geese in each Flyway…………………………………………………………………… 123
Table 4.8 Estimated costs (Canadian $$) of removal of light geese during the incubation period on specific
colony sites in the eastern and central Arctic according to level of removal and disposition of
carcasses (un-retrieved or retrieved and processed). Estimates were calculated for low
efficiency (1 bird shot/3 minutes) and high efficiency (1 bird shot/minute) harvest by
sharpshooters……………………………………………………………………………………….
127
Table 4.9 Estimated costs (Canadian $$) of removal of light geese during the brood-rearing period on
specific colony sites in the eastern and central Arctic according to level of removal and
disposition of carcasses (un-retrieved or retrieved and processed). Estimates were calculated for
low efficiency (1 bird shot/3 minutes) and high efficiency (1 bird shot/minute) harvest by
sharpshooters……………………………………………………………………………………… 128
Table 4.10 Summary of environmental consequences of light goose management alternatives……………… 134
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 1
CHAPTER 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the purpose and need for action; background on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service or “we”) and Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS); the planning process, which includes
scoping of issues and identification of alternatives; and the legal basis for the action.
This document has been developed to ensure that our proposed management action is in compliance
with NEPA. Furthermore, this process will ensure that proposed actions do not adversely affect listed
species and their critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act, as well as non-listed species covered
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
1.2 Purpose of Action
This document describes various alternatives for the purpose of reducing and stabilizing specific
populations of light geese in North America. The term “light geese” refers collectively to three taxa of geese
that have light coloration: greater snow geese, Ross’s geese, and lesser snow geese. This document addresses
concerns under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The NEPA regulations direct
Federal agencies to use the NEPA process, as a decision-making tool, as early as possible in any planning
process (40 CFR 1501).
1.3 Need for Action
There is a need to reduce and stabilize the size of several populations of light geese that have
become injurious, via their feeding actions, to habitats on their breeding, migration, and/or wintering
grounds. In addition, there is a need to reduce certain light goose populations to alleviate damage to
agricultural crops. Furthermore, there is a need to conduct population control that is cost-effective for
wildlife agencies.
Lesser snow and Ross’s geese are suspected carriers of the bacterium that causes the deadly disease
avian cholera. Cholera outbreaks are often associated with high densities of birds and the disease affects
nearly 100 species of birds, some of which are listed as threatened or endangered. There is a need to reduce
certain light goose populations to reduce the likelihood of future cholera outbreaks.
The Stakeholder’s Committee on Arctic Nesting Geese (1998) has stated that geese killed for
management purposes should be killed as humanely as possible and utilized as food wherever feasible.
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 2
However, Johnson (1997) suggested that ethical use of birds may have to be set aside in favor of more
rigorous efforts to control the population and save Arctic habitats. The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
has stated that light geese are a valuable natural resource, as game animals and as food (Batt 1997). In
developing their management recommendations, the Working Group did not consider any population
reduction strategies that advocated slaughter and destruction of birds followed by their being wasted in
landfills or some similar fate (Batt 1997). Therefore, there is a need to reduce light goose populations with
alternatives that are as humane as possible and, where feasible, do not constitute a waste of the goose
resource.
1.4 Background
1.4.1 Background Relevant to Need for Proposed Action
Various light goose populations in North America have experienced rapid population growth, and
have reached levels such that they are damaging habitats on their Arctic and subarctic breeding areas
(Abraham and Jefferies 1997, Alisauskas 1998, Jano et al. 1998, Didiuk et al. 2001). Habitat degradation in
arctic and sub-arctic areas may be irreversible, and has negatively impacted light goose populations
(Abraham and Jefferies 1997), and other bird populations dependent on such habitats (Gratto-Trevor 1994,
Rockwell 1999, Rockwell et al. 1997). Natural marsh habitats on some migration and wintering areas have
been impacted by light geese (Giroux and Bedard 1987, Giroux et al. 1998, Widjeskog 1977, Smith and
Odum 1981, Young 1985). In addition, goose damage to agricultural crops has become a problem (Bedard
and Lapointe 1991, Filion et al. 1998, Giroux et al. 1998, Delaware Div. of Fish and Wildlife 2000).
There is increasing evidence that lesser snow and Ross’s geese act as prominent reservoirs for the
bacterium that causes avian cholera (Friend 1999, Samuel et al. 1997, Samuel et al. 1999a). Over 100
species of waterbirds and raptors are susceptible to avian cholera (Botzler 1991). The threat of avian cholera
to endangered and threatened bird species is continually increasing because of increasing numbers of
outbreaks and the expanding geographic distribution of the disease (Friend 1999). This threat likely will
increase as light goose populations expand (Samuel et al. 2001). The above issues are described in more
detail in Chapter 3 Affected Environment.
The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended that light goose numbers in the mid-continent
region should be reduced by 50% (Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group 1997). The Working
Group outlined a strategy that advocated monitoring the number of mid-continent light geese to see that
appropriate population reductions are achieved, and to simultaneously monitor habitats in the Arctic coastal
ecosystem. They further recommended that when the population size reached a level that is causing no
further habitat damage, the management program should be changed to stabilize light goose numbers at that
threshold (Rockwell et al. 1997:96). In 1998, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended a
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 3
short-term management goal of stabilizing the greater snow goose population at between 800,000 to 1
million birds (Giroux et al. 1998). However, a reduction of the population below that level was
recommended if natural habitats continue to deteriorate, or if measures taken to reduce crop depredation do
not achieve desired results (Giroux et al. 1998). More recently, the Canadian Stakeholders Committee in
Quebec adopted a population goal of 500,000 birds to address continued habitat degradation and agricultural
depredations in the St. Lawrence valley (Arctic Goose Joint Venture Technical Committee 2001). The
population goal of 500,000 birds is in agreement with both the Atlantic Flyway Council goal and North
American Waterfowl Management Plan goal for greater snow geese (U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al. 1998).
Although the number of light geese breeding in the western Arctic is increasing, the Arctic Goose Habitat
Working Group has not identified an immediate management concern for habitat in that region. The number
of lesser snow geese in the western Arctic is expected to grow from the current level of approximately
579,000 birds to 1 million by the year 2010. Some researchers have suggested a proactive approach to
management of western Arctic lesser snow geese by stabilizing the population at its current level before it
escapes control via normal harvest (Hines et al. 1999).
1.4.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
We are the primary Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the
Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. Our mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish
and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Responsibilities are shared
with other Federal, State, tribal, and local entities; however, we have specific responsibilities for endangered
species, migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and
waters that we administer for the management and protection of these resources.
1.4.3 Canadian Wildlife Service
The mandate of Environment Canada, of which the CWS is part, is to preserve and enhance the
quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; conserve Canada's renewable
resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; conserve and protect Canada's
water resources; carry out meteorology; enforce the rules made by the Canada - United States International
Joint Commission relating to boundary waters; and coordinate environmental policies and programs for the
federal government. The CWS handles wildlife matters that are the responsibility of the Federal government.
These include protection and management of migratory birds, nationally significant habitat and endangered
species, as well as work on other wildlife issues of national and international importance. In addition, CWS
conducts research in many fields of wildlife biology.
1.4.4 Other Environmental Assessments and Rulemakings
In January 1999, we published a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) that examined several
management alternatives for addressing problems associated with large populations of light geese. The
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 4
preferred management alternative identified in the EA was to authorize additional methods of take of light
geese, and implement a conservation order for the reduction of overabundant light geese.
On February 16, 1999, we published 2 separate rules in the Federal Register (FR) that 1) authorized
additional methods of take of light geese (lesser snow geese and Ross’s geese) in the Central and Mississippi
Flyways (64 FR 7507); and 2) created a conservation order for the reduction of the light goose population in
the central portion of North America (64 FR 7517). At the same time, we announced our intent to initiate
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) beginning in 2000 that would consider the effects
on the human environment of a range of long-term resolutions for the light goose population problem.
On March 2, 1999, several private groups filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the
light goose regulations we published the previous month. Although the Federal judge refused to issue an
injunction, he did indicate a likelihood the plaintiffs might succeed on their argument that we should have
prepared an EIS prior to authorizing new light goose regulations. In order to avoid further litigation, and
because we had earlier indicated we would initiate preparation of an EIS in 2000, we withdrew the
regulations on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32778), and began preparation of the EIS. Subsequently, the light goose
regulations were re-instated when the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act (P.L. 106-108)
was signed into law on November 29, 1999. On September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49668) we announced
publication of the Draft EIS on light goose management.
1.5 Scoping and Public Involvement
1.5.1 Summary of Scoping Efforts
Scoping is the initial stage of the EIS process used to design the extent and influence of a
management proposal. On May 13, 1999 (64 FR 26268), we published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS
on light goose management (Appendix 1). The public notice opened a 60-day comment period and solicited
public participation in the scoping process to identify issues, alternatives, and impacts that we should address
in the EIS. On August 30, 1999 (64 FR 7332), we published a Notice of Meetings that identified the date and
location of nine public scoping meetings throughout the U.S. (Appendix 2). The Notice of Meetings opened
another comment period that lasted 84 days. Scoping meetings provided an additional opportunity for public
comment on the issues, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed in the EIS.
The Notice of Intent was mailed to a standard mailing list that the Division of Migratory Bird
Management uses for its Federal Register notices. In addition, we sent copies of the notice to all individuals,
organizations, and agencies that submitted public comments during our 1998-1999 EA process. The Notice
of Meetings was mailed to the same entities, as well as individuals, organizations, and agencies that
submitted comments in response to the Notice of Intent published on May 13, 1999.
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 5
As part of our consultation with the Canadian government, CWS agreed to distribute French and
English versions of our Notice of Intent to potentially affected groups in Canada. The CWS distribution list
contained approximately 600 individuals, and national or provincial organizations that have indicated an
interest in waterfowl management in Canada. The distribution list included wildlife management boards and
councils that oversee wildlife programs affecting First Nations people in Canada.
On September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49668) and October 5, 2001 (66 FR 51274), notices were published
in the Federal Register announcing the availability of a Draft EIS (DEIS) on light goose management for
public review. On October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52147) we published a notice in the Federal Register to
announce the schedule of public hearings to invite further public participation in the Draft EIS review
process. Hard copies of the DEIS were sent out to our EIS mailing list. CWS sent notices of availability to
entities that had responded to the notice of intent.
1.5.2 Issues and Concerns Identified During Scoping
Comments from the initial scoping process covered a range of issues and concerns, but were divided
into 2 basic categories. A total of 332 comments were received, of which 278 (84%) agreed that light goose
population levels present a problem and that active management should be pursued. The second group of
comments (9% of respondents) questioned whether widespread habitat degradation has actually occurred
and/or that light goose population levels are unprecedented. The second group of comments also indicated
that no management actions should be taken against light geese, and that natural processes should be allowed
to rectify any perceived habitat and/or population problems. A summary of issues and concerns identified
during scoping is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1. General categories of issues and concerns identified during the light goose EIS scoping process.
Issue or concern identified Portion of draft EIS that addresses issue or concern
Documentation of light goose population growth Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.4 – 3.1.8
Impacts on light geese Chapter 3, Section 3.1.9; Chapter 4, Section 4.2
Documentation of habitat degradation Chapter 3, Section 3.2
Impacts on habitat Chapter 4, Section 4.3
Impacts on other species Chapter 3, Section 3.3; Chapter 4, Section 4.4
Impacts on socio-economics Chapter 3, Section 3.5; Chapter 4, Section 4.5
Management alternatives that were identified in public comments but not included for analysis in the EIS are
reviewed in Chapter 2.
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 6
1.6 Policy, Authority, and Legal Compliance
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to
determine when it is compatible with the conventions to issue regulations to allow the take of these birds and
their nests and eggs. Of the four migratory bird conventions, three are applicable to the adoption of these
regulations: the Convention Between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (now
Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment (1978), the Convention for
the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals with Mexico (1937), and the Convention for the
Protection of Migratory Birds with Canada (1916). With respect to the fourth, the Convention Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory
Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment (1974), there is no positive evidence that the
birds that are the subject of these regulations migrate between Japan and the United States (see Article I,
Section 1.).
When two or more conventions are applicable to our adoption of regulations, we must ensure the
action is compatible with each or, where conventions have provisions on the same specific issue, the more
stringent of the provisions. Each of the conventions, negotiated at different times with four different
countries, address particular issues important to each country and, because of differing perspectives and
needs, contain agreements on similar actions that are presented in uniquely different ways.
The convention with Canada, in addition to including requirements regarding the authorization of
the hunting of migratory game birds, the taking of migratory birds for scientific, educational, propagative and
other purposes, and the harvesting of migratory birds and eggs by indigenous inhabitants of Alaska, allows
for permitting the killing of migratory birds that are seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests in any
particular community (see Article VII). It is our conclusion from all of the information available to us, and
which is summarized and referenced in this Environmental Impact Statement, that several light goose
populations have exhibited extraordinary growth. Due to their feeding actions, overabundant light geese
have become seriously injurious to habitats on various breeding, migration and wintering areas and in some
situations have also caused damage to agricultural crops. Consistent with the same article of the convention,
the regulations also provide for the suspension of the permission granted by the regulations to take these
birds when no longer needed to prevent the injuries to the habitat. In furtherance of the overall objectives of
the convention, these regulations will help insure the preservation of these and other migratory birds covered
by this convention.
The convention with Mexico provides that for migratory game birds the parties agree to establish
“close seasons” (unspecified periods or lengths) during which migratory game birds may not be taken (see
Article II). We read this to relate only to hunting because of the specific reference to “seasons”. As such, the
agreement to establish close seasons does not apply to the adoption of these regulations because this is not a
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 7
hunting program. It is a management action that is taken in order to reduce the severe habitat damage that
light geese are causing on their nesting, migration or wintering grounds. There are no other applicable
provisions in this convention except the overall purpose to protect these birds “(i)n order that they may not be
exterminated.” The specificity of the regulations with regard to implementation, monitoring, and reporting,
coupled with the revocation and suspension provisions ensure that this will be met.
The convention with Russia, with a somewhat different approach, contains an agreement that the
parties will prohibit the taking of migratory birds generally. It then provides for exceptions, one of which is
“(f)or scientific, educational, propagative, or other special purposes not inconsistent with the principles of”
the convention (see Article II). Another is for “the purpose of protecting against injury to persons or
property” (see also Article II). These regulations fall within both of these exceptions. The action not only
recognizes that birds of common interest to Russia and the United States “have common flyways, breeding,
wintering, feeding, and moulting habitat which should be protected”, the action is designed to protect that
habitat. We are “implementing measures for the conservation of migratory birds and their environment and
other birds of mutual interest” by taking actions available to us to prevent further destruction of breeding and
feeding habitat by the unusually abundant light geese. (See provisions of the convention introductory to the
Articles).
In addition to the specific provision regarding taking noted above, the 1916 treaty with Great Britain
was amended in 1999 by the governments of Canada and the United States to provide broader principles
regarding migratory bird management. These regulations and the efforts of the United States in this regard
are compatible with those provisions. Article II of the amended U.S.-Canada migratory bird treaty (Treaty)
states that, in order “to ensure the long-term conservation of migratory birds, migratory bird populations shall
be managed in accord with… conservation principles” that include (among others): to manage migratory
birds internationally; to sustain healthy migratory bird populations for harvesting needs; and to provide for
and protect habitat necessary for the conservation of migratory birds.
Article III of the Treaty states that the governments should meet regularly to review progress in
implementing the Treaty. The review shall address issues important to the conservation of migratory birds,
including the status of migratory bird populations, the status of important migratory bird habitats, and the
effectiveness of management and regulatory systems. The governments agree to work cooperatively to
resolve identified problems in a manner consistent with the principles of the Treaty and, if the need arises, to
conclude special arrangements to conserve and protect species of concern.
Article IV of the Treaty states that each government shall use its authority to take appropriate
measures to preserve and enhance the environment of migratory birds. In particular, the governments shall,
Purpose of and Need For Action
Chapter 1 Light Goose Management FEIS 8
within their constitutional authority, seek means to prevent damage to such birds and their environments and
pursue cooperative arrangements to conserve habitats essential to migratory bird populations.
This EIS and planning process is in compliance with NEPA, which requires Federal agencies to
consider all environmental factors related to their proposed actions. An EIS is an explanation/declaration of
the consequences, both favorable and unfavorable, of a particular action that is contemplated by a Federal
agency. In the DEIS published on September 28, 2001 we summarized then current information on light
goose population levels, impacts of light geese on various habitats, and analyses of different alternatives for
managing light goose populations. For the Final EIS we updated databases whenever possible and revised
analyses to include such updates. The Environmental Protection Agency reviewed our DEIS and assigned a
rating of Lack of Objection, stating that the DEIS provided adequate documentation of the potential
environmental impacts (Appendix 3).
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 9
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the process we employed to develop and analyze five alternatives for
management of light goose populations. We also present a brief description of alternatives that were
eliminated from detailed study and the reason for their elimination. The array of five alternatives that we
analyzed in detail provides a means to compare different ways of meeting the purpose and need and for
addressing issues outlined in Chapter 1.
2.2 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study
During preparation of our EA, and during the scoping process of this EIS, we received
recommendations to consider an array of options for managing light goose populations. The following
recommendations were considered but rejected because they did not have the capacity to address our
responsibilities, and did not possess the potential to alleviate problems associated with large light goose
populations. Many of the recommendations involved minor modification of existing migratory bird hunting
regulations that would not significantly increase harvest. We chose not to analyze such alternatives because
they would create unnecessary confusion concerning regulations without significantly decreasing light goose
abundance.
2.2.1 Establish a depredation order
We issue depredation orders to allow, without a permit, the killing of migratory birds that “…have
accumulated in such numbers in a particular area as to cause or about to cause serious damage to agricultural,
horticultural, and fish cultural interests…” (50 CFR Part 21.42). A depredation order would not be an
efficient method of controlling light goose populations because much of the damage caused by light geese
often is restricted to natural marsh and tundra habitats, which is not covered by depredation order regulations.
However, light geese also cause damage to crops such as hay and cereal grains. In such cases, farmers would
be eligible to apply for a depredation permit instead (50 CFR Part 21.41).
2.2.2 Egg removal
Removal or destruction of eggs on light goose breeding colonies has been suggested as a method to
alleviate habitat damage. No field studies have been conducted in the Arctic that would provide information
about the effectiveness of such a program. However, results from modeling the population dynamics of
lesser snow geese in the mid-continent region indicate that egg removal would be an inefficient method of
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 0
reducing population growth, compared to methods that lower adult survival (Rockwell et al. 1997a). A 5.7%
reduction in adult survival would induce a decline in the population, whereas a 36% decline in fertility (an
end result of egg removal) would be needed to achieve the same effect (Rockwell et al. 1997a). To equal the
effect of removing an adult bird from a population, all eggs produced by that goose during its entire lifetime
must be removed (Smith et al. 1999). Furthermore, egg removal must be nearly complete in order to prevent
recruitment from a small number of surviving nests offsetting the control efforts (Smith et al. 1999).
Rockwell et al. (1997a) estimated that 2.7 million eggs would need to be removed annually from nests simply
to reduce the population growth rate to just below 1.0. Costs for egg removal in the Arctic are not available;
however Cooper and Keefe (1997) estimated that removal costs in Minnesota are $6.38 per egg. Using the
Minnesota egg removal cost estimate for La Perouse Bay translates to $17 million per year to induce
population decline at just one light goose colony site. Search time for egg removal in light goose colonies
likely would be low due to high nest densities, but this savings would likely be offset by the high cost of
conducting field work in the Arctic. Even if complete egg removal could be achieved at a colony site, the
large number of adult birds remaining in the population would continue to degrade habitats. Due to high
costs and the large number of surviving adults, we do not view egg removal as a viable alternative for
consideration.
2.2.3 Permit the use of lead shot to take light geese
It was suggested that light goose harvest can be increased by allowing the use of lead shot, which is
perceived as being ballistically superior to other shot types. Lead shot has been demonstrated to be
poisonous to birds once ingested, and was responsible for annual mortality of 2-3% of the fall waterfowl
population (Anderson et al. 2000). Consequently, we prepared an EIS in 1976, and a Supplemental EIS in
1986, to require the use of steel (nontoxic) shot for hunting waterfowl and coots in the U.S. In 1991, we
implemented a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots (50 CFR Part
20.21[j]). Following the 1991 ban, several additional shot types have been approved for waterfowl hunting
(e.g., bismuth-tin, tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, tungsten-nickel-iron). Most waterfowl
hunters now understand and support the need to use nontoxic shot and have adjusted well to the use of an
alternative to lead. Legalization of lead shot to hunt light geese would result in massive deposition of lead in
the environment that could be ingested by non-target species, which may include endangered or threatened
species. Therefore, we consider the use of lead shot to increase the harvest of light geese to be unacceptable.
2.2.4 Permit the use of rifles and/or pistols
The use of rifles or pistols for migratory bird hunting was prohibited in 1935 (50 CFR Part
20.21[a]). Migratory bird hunters often hunt in close proximity to each other. Rifles and pistols have a
significantly longer range than shotguns, and therefore present a human safety hazard for any persons inside
or outside shotgun range. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that the use of rifles and pistols by
hunters would increase harvest of light geese. Due to both the safety risks associated with the use of rifles or
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 1
pistols for migratory bird hunting, and the lack of evidence that their use would increase harvest of light
geese, we will not consider them as options for reducing light goose populations.
2.2.5 Remove the Federal migratory bird hunting stamp requirement
during normal season frameworks
All hunters 16 years of age and older must possess a valid Federal migratory bird hunting and
conservation stamp (duck stamp) as prescribed in the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 718 [a]) in order to hunt waterfowl during normal hunting seasons. Congressional
action to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 would be required to waive the Federal duck
stamp requirement. Citizens that would hunt light geese during normal seasons likely would have already
purchased a duck stamp to hunt other waterfowl species. Therefore, we do not believe that waiver of the
duck stamp requirement would recruit additional hunters to harvest light geese during normal seasons.
2.2.6 Permit the use of reciprocal State hunting licenses
Federal regulations do not prohibit reciprocal licensing among States. Such agreements would
expand opportunities to take light geese for non-resident hunters. Reciprocal licensing would permit an
individual holding a valid hunting license in one State to hunt light geese within one or more other
cooperating States. Whereas we have jurisdiction over the broader waterfowl hunting frameworks within
which States operate, we must defer to State sovereignty where State hunting licenses are concerned (50 CFR
Part 10.3). Therefore, we have no jurisdictional authority regarding State regulations or statute requirements
for State migratory bird hunting licenses. Whereas we support the concept of reciprocal licensing, individual
States must enter into a reciprocal licensing agreement on their own authority.
2.2.7 Permit the use of live decoys to take light geese
The use of live birds as decoys to attract and hunt waterfowl was prohibited in 1935 (50 CFR Part
20.21[f]). There is a risk of transmitting certain avian diseases to wild birds from captive-reared or domestic
birds. We believe the use of live decoys to attract wild light geese would increase that risk; therefore this
alternative was rejected.
2.2.8 Permit the use of baiting to take light geese
Baiting is the direct or indirect placing, exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of salt,
grain, or other feed that could lure or attract migratory game birds to, on, or over any areas where hunters are
attempting to take them. The use of baiting to hunt migratory birds was prohibited in 1935 (50 CFR Part
20.21[i]), and has continued to be a source of controversy. Therefore, authorization of baiting is not a viable
alternative.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 2
2.2.9 Apply dove baiting regulations to regulations for hunting light
geese
Baiting regulations were modified in the early 1970s to distinguish those pertaining to dove hunting
from those for hunting waterfowl (50 CFR Part 20.21[i]). Baiting regulations were modified again in 1999 to
clarify which plant and soil management practices are legally compatible with dove and waterfowl hunting,
respectively. One of the primary differences between dove and waterfowl baiting regulations is that doves
may be hunted over areas where grain or feed has been distributed or scattered solely as the result of the
manipulation of an agricultural crop or other feed on the land where grown (50 CFR 20.21[i][2]). Light
geese and other waterfowl may not be hunted over such areas. Waterfowl may be hunted on or over the
following lands or areas: where standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); standing,
flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or
grains have been scattered solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, post-harvest
manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice (50 CFR 20.21[i][1][i]).
Some State waterfowl management plans include objectives to provide high-energy foods during
winter and migration periods after normal hunting seasons have ended. Taking light geese over such areas
during a conservation order would create a baited situation, and would be illegal. Therefore, States must
choose between providing for the needs of many waterfowl species during critical periods, or allow increased
harvest of light geese to control their population size. Baiting has been one of the most controversial issues
throughout the history of waterfowl management. This is due primarily to the rapid response of waterfowl
species to food availability, thus making them more susceptible to harvest. Manipulation of agricultural
crops to make them available to wintering and migrating birds would attract not only light geese but also a
variety of other waterfowl species. Allowing the taking of light geese on these manipulated sites may
increase harvest of light geese for a short period, but it may also increase the likelihood of non-target species
being taken. Furthermore, opening such sites to light goose hunting would create a disturbance to other
species, thus making food resources unavailable to them for extended periods. We believe these potential
negative impacts to other species outweighs the increase in light goose harvest that might be realized, and
therefore will not include changes in baiting regulations as part of our management strategy.
2.2.10 Allow rallying or herding of light geese with the aid of a
motorized vehicle or device
Migratory bird hunting regulations prohibit the take of migratory birds by means or aid of any
motor-driven land, water, or air conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the
concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird (50 CFR Part 20.21 [h]). Additionally,
migratory birds may not be hunted by means, aid, or use of aircraft of any kind (50 CFR Part 20.21 [d]).
Rallying with the aid of a powered device presents a potential safety hazard to hunters and any person within
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 3
range. Furthermore, rallying of birds may result in “flock-shooting” which may cause wounding of large
numbers of birds that subsequently are not retrieved. Although the use of these techniques may cause a slight
increase in harvest of light geese, we feel that the risk to human safety and the potential for wounding losses
of birds are too great to allow their authorization.
2.2.11 Provide supplemental food to light geese on breeding areas
A recommendation was made to alleviate light goose damage to arctic and sub-arctic habitats by
providing supplemental food to geese on their breeding grounds. There is no evidence to suggest that light
geese would abandon the consumption of preferred natural foods during the breeding period in favor of food
supplied artificially. Furthermore, if supplemental food sources are utilized by light geese, it is likely that
high population levels will be maintained and recovery of natural vegetation in damaged habitats will be
impossible. Maintenance of large, mobile goose populations will also increase the likelihood that intact
habitats will be damaged in the future. Therefore, we did not analyze this alternative.
2.2.12 Alter U.S. farm policies to promote reduction of foods
available to light geese on wintering and migration areas
The agricultural sector is a critical component of the U.S. economy. In 1999, approximately 143.8
million acres were planted to corn, rice, and wheat, producing a total crop value of over $25 billion (U.S.
Dept. Agriculture 2000). In the Mississippi and Central Flyways, approximately 124 million acres were
planted to corn, rice, and wheat, and produced $22 billion worth of crops. Reduction of the availability of
post-harvest waste grain to light geese on private land would entail significant reductions in the total area
planted to such crops. These reductions would seriously impact not only U.S. farmers, but also the U.S.
economy in general. The Service has no regulatory control over U.S. farm policies and programs and
therefore cannot manipulate the availability of agricultural foods to light geese. Furthermore, the potentially
large negative impact of this alternative on the U.S. economy makes it impractical. Therefore, this
alternative was not analyzed.
2.2.13 Control light goose populations through use of reproductive
inhibitors
Conjugated linoleic acid has been demonstrated to reduce goose egg hatching rates in the laboratory
when supplied consistently to birds during the egg formation period (Hill and Craven, unpublished data).
However, no effective delivery mechanism has been developed for use in remote field situations on a broad
scale. Therefore, researchers have suggested that reproductive inhibitors currently are not a practical method
for controlling wild goose populations. Even if reproduction could be prevented, existing goose populations
would remain high for many years due to the long life span of adult birds.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 4
2.2.14 Allow commercial harvesting of light geese
The Migratory Bird Treaty prohibits the sale of migratory birds, their nests, and their eggs; except
under certain conditions by Aboriginal peoples. Article II of the Treaty states that Aboriginal people in
Canada may sell down and inedible by-products of their traditional harvest of migratory birds, but only
within or among Aboriginal communities. Article II also provides for the limited sale of inedible by-products
of migratory birds taken by indigenous inhabitants of Alaska, if such by-products are incorporated
into authentic articles of handicraft. The harvest of such items must be consistent with the customary and
traditional uses by indigenous inhabitants for their own nutritional and other essential needs. Such
limitations on the commercial sale of light geese prevent this alternative from being an effective avenue for
disposing of large numbers of light geese. Expansion of commercial sale of migratory birds by Aboriginal
people, or authorization of commercial harvesting by non-Aboriginal people, would require a change in the
Treaty. Such changes would entail time-consuming negotiations between the U.S. and Canadian Federal
governments, with uncertain results. Many light goose populations would continue to increase during the
negotiation period, thus making control more difficult if and when expanded commercial harvesting were
eventually authorized. More importantly, the Canadian Wildlife Service has indicated that they do not
support development of general commercial activities and take for the purpose of light goose control. They
do not wish to establish a short-lived commercial opportunity that could have serious long-term effects on
community support for and compliance with regulations. Therefore, we have chosen not to analyze this
alternative.
2.2.15 Allow predators to control light goose populations
Major predators of light goose eggs and young include Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), red fox (Vulpes
fulva), herring gulls (Larus argentatus), glaucous gulls (L. hyperboreus), and parasitic jaegers (Stercorarius
parasiticus; Mowbray et al. 2000, Sovada et al. 2001). Other predators include polar bear (Ursus maritimus),
black bear (U. americanus), gray wolf (Canis lupus), coyote (C. latrans), common raven (Corvus corax),
sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), long-tailed jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus), snowy owls (Nyctea
scandiaca), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus; Mowbray et al. 2000, Sovada et al. 2001). Adult geese do not
commonly fall prey to predators (Sargeant and Raveling 1992). The nesting period in the Arctic typically is
short and highly synchronized among individuals. The rapid increase in eggs and young available to
predators during the nesting season likely overwhelms the ability of predator species to take full advantage of
the new food supply (Sovada et al. 2001). Therefore, predation likely has little potential to limit growth of
most light goose populations and we chose not to analyze this alternative.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 5
2.3 Rationale for Design of Analyzed Alternatives
All alternatives considered were evaluated in relation to their ability to reduce and stabilize light
goose populations, and prevent further degradation of habitats important to light geese and other migratory
birds. NEPA regulations require analysis of a No Action alternative. Three additional alternatives were
developed for the Draft EIS as a result of our previous EA on light goose management, as well as input
received during the scoping phase of the EIS. One of the alternatives proposed to create additional
regulatory tools and alter habitat management programs on some of our refuges for the purpose of reducing
and stabilizing specific populations of light geese in North America. The remaining two alternatives in the
Draft EIS proposed direct control of light goose populations either on the breeding grounds, or on migration
and wintering areas.
We received substantial public comment on the Draft EIS concerning the original four alternatives.
Several State wildlife agencies and Flyway Councils expressed concern that the alternatives were mutually
exclusive and prevented a more integrated approach to management. Specifically, the States and Flyway
Councils preferred a program that included the use of direct population control by wildlife agencies, if
deemed necessary, to complement harvest of light geese resulting from regulatory tools such as a
conservation order. In response to this input, we created and analyzed a fifth alternative that is essentially a
combination of alternatives B, C, and D.
2.4 Description of Alternatives
2.4.1 Alternative A. No Action. Continue to manage light goose
populations through existing wildlife management policies and
practices.
Under the No Action alternative light goose populations would be allowed to increase in size. This
alternative would continue to manage light geese through existing wildlife management policies and
practices, with the exception of temporary light goose regulations implemented under the Arctic Tundra
Habitat Emergency Conservation Act. Traditional harvest of light geese will continue during the regular
season and will be managed using existing administrative procedures. Light goose hunting regulations
adopted by States will be confined to Federal frameworks that provide for a maximum season length of 107
days, occurring during the period September 1 to March 10 as prescribed by the Treaty (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1988). Existing hunt programs and existing administrative procedures for establishing new
hunt programs, on national wildlife refuges administered by the Service will remain in place. Habitat
management programs on refuges would continue as normal with regard to the purposes for which each
refuge was established.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 6
2.4.2 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative). Modify harvest regulation
options and refuge management.
This alternative would modify Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20 to allow the use
of additional hunting methods to hunt light geese within current migratory bird hunting-season frameworks.
We would authorize the use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns to harvest light geese during normal
light-goose hunting seasons when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are
closed.
This alternative would also create a new Subpart to 50 CFR Part 21 specifically for the management
of overabundant light goose populations. Under this new Subpart, we would establish a conservation order
under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the intent to reduce and stabilize light goose
population levels. The conservation order would authorize each State/Tribe in eligible areas to initiate
aggressive light goose harvest strategies, within the conditions that we provide, with the intent to reduce the
populations. The order will enable States/Tribes to use hunters to harvest light geese, by way of shooting in a
hunting manner, during a period when all waterfowl (including light geese) and crane hunting seasons,
excluding falconry, are closed, inside or outside the migratory bird hunting season frameworks. The order
would also authorize the use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns, eliminate daily bag limits on light
geese, and allow shooting hours to continue until one-half hour after sunset. Due to the dynamic nature of
annual migration and wintering patterns of light geese it is not feasible to identify specific sites in the U.S.
where harvest of light geese would occur in a given year. However, examination of recent patterns in snow
and Ross's goose harvest by county provides a general overview of where goose concentrations and harvest
would likely occur in the future (Appendix 4).
The Service will annually monitor and assess the overall impact and effectiveness of the
conservation order to ensure compatibility with long-term conservation of this resource. Reduction of light
goose populations to management goals will result in numeric levels that still provide abundant opportunities
for non-consumptive uses of the resource (e.g. wildlife viewing). If at any time evidence is presented that
clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a serious threat of injury to the area or areas involved for a
particular light goose population, we will initiate action to suspend the conservation order, and/or regular-season
regulation changes, for that population. Suspension of regulations for a particular population would
be made following a public review process. Specific details of light goose regulations under CFR Parts 20
and 21 are presented in Appendix 5. The conservation order will be conducted such that it does not
adversely affect other migratory bird populations or any species designated under the Endangered Species
Act as threatened or endangered.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 7
Finally, this alternative would alter management practices on some Service national wildlife refuges
to decrease the amount of sanctuary and food available to migrating and wintering light geese. The most
likely action that a refuge would implement is creating new areas open to light goose hunting, or enlarging
areas that currently are open. While some refuges may be opened for migratory bird hunting without area
limitation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 stipulates that only 40% of
certain refuges may be opened to migratory bird hunting. The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-616) amended the 1966 Act to permit the opening of greater than 40% of certain refuges to
hunting when it is determined to be beneficial to the species hunted. Following Executive Order 12996
issued on March 25, 1996, Congress enacted the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
amending the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to establish that compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation are the priority public uses of the Refuge System. In order to
establish a refuge hunt program, a determination must be made that the program is compatible with the major
purposes for which the refuge was established (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). Establishment of a
hunt program includes preparation of the plan itself, an Environmental Assessment, Section 7 consultation in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act, and Proposed and Final Rules in the Federal Register (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). Each year, we make new proposals for amendments to refuge-specific
hunting regulations available for public review and comment in the Federal Register.
Due to the dynamic nature of annual migration and wintering patterns of light geese, as well as
changing habitat conditions, we cannot provide a definitive listing of annual management actions that some
refuges may implement. Changes to refuge management may also include alteration of habitat programs to
reduce food availability for, and make habitats less attractive to, light geese. For example, many refuges
have been undertaking reforestation programs. While such programs were not initiated in response to the
light goose issue, they will have the added effect of reducing food available to light geese. Some refuges that
harbor significant numbers of light geese may choose to alter impoundment water levels in order to create
roosting areas and attract birds near hunted sites, or eliminate roosting areas to encourage birds to move to
areas where hunting does occur. Reduction of areas planted to agricultural crops on some refuges will also
decrease food available to light geese. Modification of prescribed burn programs may also be used to make
certain areas on refuges more or less attractive to light geese depending on the size of the burn area. Any
uses included with changes in management practices on a particular refuge will be permitted only after they
have been determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, and due
regard to potential impacts to special status (threatened or endangered) species has been made.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 8
2.4.3 Alternative C. Implement direct light goose population control
on wintering and migration areas in the U.S.
We define direct control as the purposeful removal of large numbers of birds from a population
using lethal means. This alternative would implement direct population control to achieve desired light
goose population levels. Control efforts would be undertaken by wildlife agencies (Federal and/or State) on
light goose migration and wintering areas in the U.S. Under this alternative we would create a special light
goose permit within 50 CFR Part 21 specifically for the reduction of light goose populations. Regulations
governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are authorized
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and are promulgated in 50 CFR parts 13 and 21. Federal courts have
affirmed that all Federal agencies are subject to prohibitions in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including the
restrictions on take of migratory birds. Executive Order 13186 state that all Federal agencies are subject to
the provisions of the MBTA. Directors Order 131 clarifies Service policy regarding applicability of the
MBTA to Federal agencies and the issuance of permits to agencies, including the Service. Any Federal
personnel that undertake light goose management activities that will result in take of light geese must apply
for and receive a permit from the appropriate Regional Office of the Service to do so. The permit would
allow Federal and State agencies involved in migratory bird management, and/or their authorized designated
agents, to initiate light goose population reduction actions within the conditions/restrictions of the program.
Permits will be issued to the appropriate Regional Director of the Service that oversees the geographic area in
question. The permit will delegate authority to Federal personnel and/or cooperating State wildlife agency
personnel that will be involved in control activities.
Applications for the special light goose permit would require a statement from the agency that
provides a general description of the action area, an estimate of the approximate number of light geese
expected to be found in the action area and the approximate number of light geese that are to be taken.
Permit holders would be required to properly dispose of or utilize light geese killed under the program. Light
geese killed under this permit could be donated for scientific and educational purposes, or be donated to
charities for human consumption. In the absence of such disposal options, geese may be buried or
incinerated. Light geese, and their plumage, taken under these permits may not be sold, offered for sale,
bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter. Control activities would be undertaken such that they do
not adversely affect other migratory bird populations or any species designated under the Endangered
Species Act as threatened or endangered.
Agencies may use their own discretion for methods of take. Methods may include, but are not
limited to, firearms, traps, chemicals or other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-damage
management programs. The advantage of live-trapping is that non-target species would be released
unharmed. Chemical control would be achieved by treating corn or other food with chemicals (e.g., DRC-
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 1 9
1339, Avitrol, or alpha chloralose) and broadcasting the treated bait in areas where light geese are feeding.
Currently, these chemicals are not registered for use on light geese. Under this alternative, agencies would
apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for use of these chemicals on light geese under a Section 18
Specific Exemption, or a Section 24C registration, under the Federal Insecticide and Rodenticide Act. All
chemical control efforts would be used only in areas utilized by large flocks of light geese. This will increase
efficiency of the control effort and minimize the take of non-target species, which tend to avoid sites used by
large flocks of light geese (J. Cummings, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, personal communication).
Due to the dynamic nature of annual migration and wintering patterns of light geese, we cannot
provide a definitive listing of sites where geese would be taken. However, examination of recent patterns in
snow and Ross's goose harvest by county provides a general overview of where goose concentrations, and
thus control efforts, would likely occur in the future (Appendix 4). By necessity, control efforts will have to
be opportunistic with regard to daily and seasonal movements of geese. Sites likely would include
agricultural fields and roosting areas near wetlands, preferably on Federal or State wildlife areas where
access would not be an issue. Control activities would be undertaken such that they do not adversely affect
other migratory bird populations or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as threatened
or endangered.
Permit holders will be required to keep records of all activities performed under the permit and
submit annual reports to the Service office that granted the permit. We will annually review such reports and
assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility with the long-term conservation of this
resource. If at any time evidence is presented that clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a serious
threat of injury to the area or areas involved for a particular light goose population, we will initiate action to
suspend the special permits for that population. Specific conditions/restrictions of this permit are outlined in
Appendix 6.
2.4.4 Alternative D. Seek direct light goose population control on
breeding grounds in Canada.
This alternative would achieve light goose population reduction through direct control on the
breeding grounds in Canada. We do not have the authority to unilaterally implement direct population
control measures in Canada. However, we have discussed the issue of direct population control with the
Canadian Wildlife Service during meetings of the Arctic Goose Joint Venture. The Joint Venture has formed
a working group to outline potential methods of direct control if such measures are ever deemed necessary.
The working group report by Alisauskas and Malecki (2003) outlined costs of conducting direct control on
the breeding grounds. This alternative may or may not involve U.S. wildlife agency participation, depending
on the availability of funding and manpower in Canada. Regardless, the Canadian government would be the
lead authority under this alternative.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 2 0
Methods of control would include shooting, trapping, or chemical control. Shooting of birds by
sharpshooters would most likely be conducted during the nest incubation period when birds are attentive to
nests, and their movements are limited. Personnel would be flown into nesting colonies and would conduct
control efforts during the short nest incubation period. Sharpshooters would easily be able to identify bird
species before shooting, and thus avoid take of non-target bird species. Capture methods would be employed
during the brood-rearing period when young birds have not yet attained flight stage and adult birds are
undergoing feather molt. In most instances, capturing of birds would be accomplished by driving birds into
capture pens with the aid of helicopters. Birds would be euthanized after being captured. Any non-target
bird species caught incidental to light goose trapping would be released. The agency costs of implementing
this alternative depend on the distance of the specific breeding colony to the nearest human settlement, the
timing of when direct control would occur (nest incubation period or post-hatch), and the fate of birds that
are killed (un-retrieved or retrieved for processing).
Chemical control may also be employed during the flightless period when treated baits could be
broadcast on sites utilized by large flocks of birds. Chemical types and methods of application would be
similar to those outlined in Alternative C. The cost of conducting fieldwork in the Arctic under this
alternative is much higher than control efforts in the U.S. To reduce costs, leaving goose carcasses in the
field would be an option for consideration. Although we would consider this a waste of the goose resource,
the nutrients contained in goose carcasses would be returned to the environment. Alternatively, carcasses
could be collected and air-lifted to the nearest available facility for processing.
2.4.5 Alternative E . Two-phased Approach to Light Goose Population
Control.
This alternative would achieve light goose population control using an integrated, two-phased
approach involving increased harvest resulting from new regulatory tools (e.g. conservation order), changes
in refuge management, and direct agency control. Phase one of this alternative is identical to Alternative B,
whereas phase two includes elements of Alternatives C and D. In phase one, we would modify Title 50 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20 to allow the use of additional hunting methods to hunt light geese
within current migratory bird hunting-season frameworks. We would authorize the use of electronic calls
and unplugged shotguns to harvest light geese during normal light-goose hunting seasons when all other
waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. In addition, we would create a new
Subpart to 50 CFR Part 21 specifically for the management of overabundant light goose populations. Under
this new Subpart, we would establish a conservation order under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act with the intent to reduce and stabilize light goose population levels. Specific details of the proposed light
goose regulations under CFR Parts 20 and 21 are presented in Appendix 5.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 2 1
During phase one, we would also alter management practices on some Service national wildlife
refuges to decrease the amount of sanctuary and food available to migrating and wintering light geese. The
most likely action that a refuge would implement is creating new areas open to light goose hunting, or
enlarging areas that currently are open. Changes to refuge management may also include alteration of habitat
programs to reduce food availability for, and make habitats less attractive to, light geese.
Although annual monitoring of our program will be conducted (see section 2.3.6), under this
alternative we would evaluate the effectiveness of the light goose management program under phase one
within 5 years of its initiation and assess the potential need for phase two. Phase two of this alternative
incorporates direct agency control of light goose populations as described previously in Alternatives C and
D. Direct population control would be implemented for a particular population after we determined that
reduction of the population cannot be achieved solely through implementation of regulations, such as a
conservation order, and changes in refuge management. Management actions initiated during phase one
would be continued in order to compliment population reductions achieved in phase two.
Because we have no jurisdiction over management actions in Canada (Alternative D), this
alternative provides that if phase two were needed it would begin with the actions outlined in Alternative C.
If additional population control actions were found to be needed we would then approach the Canadian
Wildlife Service and urge implementation of actions outlined in Alternative D. Initial direct control efforts
would be undertaken by wildlife agencies (Federal and/or State) on light goose migration and wintering areas
in the U.S. Under this alternative we would create a special light goose permit within 50 CFR Part 21
specifically for the reduction of light goose populations. Permits will be issued to the appropriate Regional
Director of the Service that oversees the geographic area in question. The permit will delegate authority to
personnel of the Service, other Federal personnel, and/or cooperating State wildlife agency personnel, to
initiate light goose population reduction actions within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Control
activities would be undertaken such that they do not adversely affect other migratory birds or any species
designated under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered. If at any time evidence is
presented that clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a serious threat of injury to the area or areas
involved for a particular light goose population, we will initiate action to suspend the special permits for that
population. Specific conditions/restrictions of this permit are outlined in Appendix 6.
Agencies may use their own discretion for methods of take. Methods may include, but are not
limited to, firearms, traps, chemicals or other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-damage
management programs. The advantage of live-trapping is that non-target species would be released
unharmed. Chemical control would be achieved by treating corn or other food with chemicals (e.g., DRC-
1339, Avitrol, or alpha chloralose) and broadcasting the treated bait in areas where light geese are feeding.
Currently, these chemicals are not registered for use on light geese. Under this alternative, agencies would
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 2 2
apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for use of these chemicals on light geese under a Section 18
Specific Exemption, or a Section 24C registration, under the Federal Insecticide and Rodenticide Act. All
chemical control efforts would be used only in areas utilized by large flocks of light geese. This will increase
efficiency of the control effort and minimize the take of non-target species, which tend to avoid sites used by
large flocks of light geese (J. Cummings, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, personal communication).
Due to the dynamic nature of annual migration and wintering patterns of light geese, we cannot
provide a definitive listing of sites where geese would be taken in the U.S. However, examination of recent
patterns in snow and Ross's goose harvest by county provides a general overview of where goose
concentrations, and thus control efforts, would likely occur in the future (Appendix 4). By necessity, control
efforts will have to be opportunistic with regard to daily movements of geese. Sites likely would include
agricultural fields and roosting areas near wetlands, preferably on Federal or State wildlife areas where
access would not be an issue. Prior to initiation of control efforts on any areas, the presence of threatened or
endangered species would be determined in order to prevent potential impacts to such species.
If the combination of phases one and two of this alternative implemented in the U.S. is not
successful in achieving desired population reduction goals, further management actions in Canada will be
needed. These actions are identical to those outlined in Alternative D. Methods of control would include
shooting, chemicals, or capturing. Shooting of birds by sharpshooters would most likely be conducted during
the nest incubation period when birds are attentive to nests, and their movements are limited. Personnel
would be flown into nesting colonies and would conduct control efforts during the short nest incubation
period. Sharpshooters would easily be able to identify bird species before shooting, and thus avoid take of
non-target bird species. Capture methods would be employed during the birds’ flightless period in summer
when they are undergoing feather molt. Capturing of birds would be accomplished by driving birds into
capture pens with the aid of helicopters or float planes. Birds would be euthanized after being captured.
Any non-target bird species caught incidental to light goose trapping would be released. The agency costs of
implementing this alternative depend on the distance of the breeding colony to the nearest human settlement,
the timing of when direct control would occur (nest incubation period or post-hatch), and the fate of birds
that are killed. Chemical control may also be employed during the flightless period when treated baits could
be broadcast on sites utilized by large flocks of molting birds. Chemical types and methods of application
would be similar to those outlined in Alternative C.
Once the desired reduction of a particular light goose population is achieved, management actions
can be curtailed. However, to prevent a rebound of the population certain maintenance level actions should
remain in place. For example, retention of the use of additional hunting methods (electronic calls, unplugged
shotguns) to hunt light geese within current migratory bird hunting-season frameworks would maintain
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 2 3
harvest pressure. Temporary reinstatement of a conservation order may be needed in some years to achieve
the level of harvest necessary to maintain a population at the desired level.
2.3.6 Light Goose Population Monitoring
Common to all analyzed alternatives is the existence of a variety of light goose population
monitoring programs in North America. These programs include annual winter surveys, periodic photo
surveys of nesting colonies, and marking of birds with leg bands to estimate goose distribution, and survival
and recovery rates. Monitoring of annual light goose harvest would continue through our normal waterfowl
harvest surveys and those conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service. More detailed descriptions of several
of these programs are presented in Chapter 3. Information from monitoring programs will enable us to
monitor the response of light goose populations to each of the alternatives. For Alternatives B-D, existing
population monitoring programs will be used to determine when population reduction programs should be
suspended.
Alternatives B, C, and E advocate light goose management on migration and wintering areas in the
U.S. Under these alternatives, managers will minimize the risk of impacting lesser snow geese from Wrangel
Island, Russia, which have experienced years of poor reproduction due to climatic conditions on their
breeding areas. Monitoring of marked birds has indicated that birds from Wrangel Island that migrate to the
Pacific Flyway through British Columbia and Washington are geographically separated from western arctic
birds, which tend to migrate through Alberta and Saskatchewan (Armstrong et al. 1999). Harvest pressure on
Wrangel Islands birds found in eastern Oregon can be reduced by delaying hunting seasons, or control
efforts, in the fall. This is possible due to the tendency of Wrangel Island birds to arrive two weeks earlier
than western arctic birds in such areas. Furthermore, potential light goose control efforts in the Imperial
Valley of southern California will not impact Wrangel Island birds because the area is used primarily by
birds from the western Arctic (Armstrong et al. 1999).
The Arctic Goose Joint Venture has prepared science needs documents for greater snow geese
(Arctic Goose Joint Venture Technical Committee 2001) and lesser snow and Ross’s geese (Arctic Goose
Joint Venture Technical Committee 1998). These documents outline expenditures for existing population
monitoring programs (described above) and those for programs to be developed in the next several years.
New programs include expansion of population monitoring to other colony sites, vegetation mapping of
previously un-mapped goose colony areas, vegetation monitoring, and monitoring biodiversity at colony
sites. Information provided by such programs will be used in an adaptive management process, whereby
managers will learn about the response of light goose populations and their habitats to whatever management
alternative is implemented.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 2 4
2.3.7 Current Light Goose Regulations
Under each alternative that is analyzed, traditional harvest of light geese will continue during the
regular season and will be managed using existing administrative procedures. Light goose hunting
regulations adopted by States will be confined to Federal frameworks that provide for a maximum season
length of 107 days, occurring during the period September 1 to March 10 as prescribed by the Treaty with
Canada (USDI 1988). Existing hunting programs, and administrative procedures for establishing new
hunting programs, on national wildlife refuges administered by the Service will remain in place.
2.5 Comparison of Analyzed Alternatives
All of the alternatives we analyzed would allow harvest of light geese (Table 2.1). Alternative A
(no action) would maintain normal light goose hunting seasons that are regulated through existing
administrative procedures. Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) seeks to control light goose populations by
increasing harvest within and outside normal hunting season frameworks, and by altering habitat
management practices on Service-owned national wildlife refuges. Implementation of a conservation order
would allow take of light geese outside of normal hunting season frameworks, while geese are still present on
wintering and migration areas in the U.S. Authorization of new methods of take would increase the
effectiveness of hunters during normal hunting seasons, as well as the effectiveness of participants in
conservation order activities. Alteration of goose habitats and hunting programs on national wildlife refuges
would slightly decrease the amount of food and sanctuary available to light geese on wintering and migration
areas in the U.S. Alternatives C and D involve direct control of light geese by removing large numbers of
birds from the population(s) in a short period of time. The primary difference between Alternatives C and D
is whether control of birds occurs in the U.S. or Canada. Alternative E represents an integrated, two-phased
approach to management that incorporates aspects of Alternatives B, C, and D. Phase one of Alternative E is
identical to Alternative B. If sufficient population reduction is not achieved in phase one, phase two would
be considered for implementation. Phase two of Alternative E would begin with implementation of
management actions in the U.S. as described in Alternative C. If further population reduction was needed,
we would consult with the Canadian Wildlife Service to urge implementation of Alternative D on the
breeding grounds.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 Light Goose Management FEIS 2 5
Alternative E. Two-phased
approach to
light goose population
control.
Reduced through
harvest in phase one.
Reduced through
harvest and direct
agency control in
phase two.
Remain in place.
New methods of take
and creation of a
conservation order.
Creation of light
goose permit for
direct control.
Expanded.
Modified.
Alternative D. Direct
control of light goose
populations on
breeding areas in
Canada.
Reduced by Canadian
agencies on breeding
grounds with possible
U.S. assistance.
Remain in place.
No new U.S.
regulations.
Remain in place.
Normal changes
occur using existing
administrative
process.
Proceeds as normal.
Alternative C. Direct
control of light goose
populations on
wintering and
migration areas in
U.S.
Reduced by wildlife
agencies in U.S.
Remain in place.
Creation of special
light goose permit.
Remain in place.
Normal changes
occur using existing
administrative
process.
Proceeds as normal.
Alternative B.
(Preferred). Modify
harvest regulation
options and refuge
management.
Reduced through
harvest.
Remain in place.
New methods of take
and creation of a
conservation order.
Expanded.
Modified .
Alternative A. No
Action.
Allowed to increase.
Remain in place.
No new regulations.
Remain in place.
Normal changes
occur using existing
administrative
process.
Proceeds as normal.
Table 2.1. Summary of light goose management alternatives to be analyzed.
Actions
Light goose populations
Existing light goose
harvest regulations
New light goose
regulations
Refuge hunt programs
Refuge habitat
management
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 26
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.0 Incorporation of new information received after publication of our
Draft EIS on light goose management
Subsequent to our publication of the DEIS on light goose management on September 28, 2001 we
continued to monitor the status of light goose populations through a variety of surveys. In addition, we have
included newly-published information on the impacts of light geese on various habitats, estimates of the cost
of direct population control in arctic and sub-arctic regions, as well as the socioeconomic impacts of non-consumptive
use of light geese in Canada. We also have included this new information in our analysis of
management alternatives outlined in the EIS (Chapter 4).
With regard to revised information on population status, we have included additional unpublished
FWS and CWS survey information to provide the latest estimates of the spring population (Fig. 3.7) and
winter index (Fig. 3.11) of greater snow geese. Current estimates of the winter index for MCP light geese
(Fig. 3.12), WCFP light geese (Fig. 3.13), CMF light geese (Fig. 3.14), and light geese in the Pacific Flyway
(3.15) are provided. As was discussed in our DEIS, these updated indices continue to show that light goose
populations remain above desired NAWMP and Flyway Council goals.
Section 3.1.9 of the FEIS contains an expanded explanation of our concern about the impacts of
habitat degradation on light goose populations. The need for this additional text arose from a public
comment on the DEIS (see FEIS section 7.8, comment 141). The comment stated that the No Action
alternative premise that light goose populations would be allowed to increase in size is untenable. In our
response to the comment, we indicated that nowhere in the DEIS did we state that light goose populations
would increase indefinitely. We stated the possibility that geese would seek out new habitats for food
resources after they degraded other sites. The DEIS also raised the possibility that density-dependent
regulation of the population would occur (see DEIS section 4.2.1). In the DEIS we cited Abraham and
Jeffries’ (1997) extensive review of light goose population increases, the effects of light geese on habitats,
and the resulting impacts of habitat degradation on light geese themselves. In FEIS section 3.1.9 we have
included citations of Cooch et al. (1989), Cooch et al. (1991a, b), Reed and Plante (1997), and Williams et al.
(1993). Although we did not include these citations in the DEIS, the papers were discussed in the Abraham
and Jeffries (1997) review paper upon which we based much of our concern. The cited papers merely
reinforce our concern that light geese will damage breeding habitats to such an extent that food supplies may
become depleted, body condition of adult birds and clutch sizes may decline, and goslings could experience
slower growth rates or starvation.
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 27
Following publication of our DEIS, results of studies on greater snow geese by Feret et al. (2003)
and Mainguy (2002) were published. We included results of these studies in the FEIS (section 3.1.10, page
46) because they provide new information on the impact of increased spring harvest of snow geese in
Quebec. Years with spring harvest in Quebec may have caused reduced foraging time by geese on
farmlands. Consequently, reduced intake of agricultural foods may in turn have caused reduced body
condition and possibly reduced goose production later in spring (Ferer et al. 2002, Mainguy 2002). This new
information was considered in our analysis of the impacts of management alternatives on light geese;
however it did not change our conclusions. The information generated from the new studies reinforces our
contention in the DEIS (section 3.1.10) that an agricultural food subsidy can improve body condition and
survival of geese, and lead to enhanced productivity and population growth.
The FEIS contains updates from our annual waterfowl harvest surveys (section 3.1.11). Regular
season harvest information for greater snow geese was updated (Fig. 3.17) and used to provide more recent
estimates of harvest rates for the population (Fig. 3.18, Table 3.3). The additional years of harvest data
following publication of the DEIS allowed us to refine our harvest rate estimates for greater snow geese
(Table 3.3). At the time of publication of the DEIS there was sufficient information to estimate a harvest rate
(16.7%) only for the 1999-2000 period (DEIS pg. 42). With finalized U.S. harvest data for the 1999-2000
regular season, the harvest rate estimate for greater snow geese was revised to 15% (FEIS Table 3.3).
Harvest rates during 1999-2005 ranged from 13% to 25% (average 18.5%; FEIS Table 3.3). This new
information allowed us to refine our estimates of harvest that would result if the U.S. implemented a
conservation order for greater snow geese (Table 4.4). The information did not result in a change in our
preferred alternative, and it merely allowed us to refine our prediction of how long a population reduction
would take (Fig. 4.1).
We provide updates of regular season and conservation order harvest of CMF light geese in Table
3.4. In our DEIS we utilized preliminary data to estimate total CMF harvest for the 1998/99 and 1999/00
periods, which ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 million birds (DEIS Table 3.3). Our updated estimates for total annual
harvest through spring 2005 ranged from 1.1 to 1.5 million birds (Table 3.4). This additional data was
considered in our analysis of the impacts of modifying harvest regulations on CMF light geese (FEIS section
4.2.2). The additional data resulted in a slight lowering of the estimated percent increase in harvest resulting
from new harvest regulations (Table 4.2); however the new information did not cause us to change our
preferred alternative.
With regard to new information in the FEIS related to light goose impacts on habitat, we cite studies
published by Jefferies and Rockwell (2002), Handa et al. (2002), and Handa and Jefferies (2000). Jefferies
and Rockwell (2002) documented increases in the proportion of bare soil resulting from habitat degradation
by light geese in 3 intertidal marshes at La Perouse Bay, Manitoba (Fig. 3.23). Handa et al. (2002)
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 28
commented on the short-lived nature of any plant communities that attempt to colonize exposed sediments.
Handa and Jefferies (2000) pointed out the difficulties of trying to artificially re-establish marsh plant
communities on a large scale. These studies reinforce our DEIS descriptions of habitat degradation and our
contention of poor prospects of recovery of such habitats.
In FEIS section 3.3.2 we cited new information from Sherfy and Kirkpatrick (2003) that
demonstrated potential light goose impacts on the availability of invertebrate food resources for shorebirds.
This new study reinforces our concern expressed in the DEIS that habitat degradation caused by light geese
has the potential to affect the ability of other bird species to utilize such habitats.
In our DEIS (section 3.5.2) we cited the lack of information on the economic impact of non-consumptive
uses of the light goose resource. Recent information published by CWS (2005) provides insight
to the potential economic impact of non-consumptive uses of waterfowl migration through Quebec. An
economic impact of more than $19 million (Canadian $) can be attributed to birdwatching activities at four
main waterfowl migration areas in Quebec. An additional $5 million was generated annually by 2 greater
snow goose festivals, one Canada goose festival, and operation of associated educational centers (CWS
2005). We incorporated this information in our response to comment numbers 163 and 182 in FEIS Chapter
7. We incorporated these impacts in our analysis of each management alternative in section 4.6 of the FEIS;
however the new information did not cause us to change our preferred alternative.
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 29
3.1 LIGHT GEESE
3.1.1 Definition
The term light geese refers collectively to three taxa in North America: lesser snow geese (Chen
caerulescens caerulescens), greater snow geese (C. c. atlantica), and Ross’s geese (C. rossii). These taxa are
referred to as “light” geese due to their light coloration; as opposed to “dark” geese such as Canada geese
(Branta canadensis) and white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons). Interestingly, there are two color phases of
lesser snow geese: the dark phase, typically referred to as “blue” geese, and white phase, typically referred to
as “snow” geese or “white” geese. Blue phase lesser snow geese are the same species as white phase lesser
snow geese and the two color phases may interbreed. Regardless of the color phase, blue and snow geese are
referred to as light geese.
3.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Species
Greater snow geese. — Greater snow geese breed in the eastern Arctic of Canada and migrate
southward through Quebec, New York, and New England to their wintering grounds in the mid-Atlantic U.S.
(Fig. 3.1).
Ross’s geese. — Approximately 90-95% of Ross’s geese breed in the Queen Maud Gulf region of
the central Arctic (Kerbes 1994). Small numbers of Ross’s geese also breed on Banks Island in the western
Arctic, along western and southern Hudson Bay, and Southampton and Baffin Islands in the eastern Arctic.
Prior to the 1960s, Ross’s geese nested primarily in the central arctic region and most birds migrated to
wintering areas in California. This species has dramatically expanded its range eastward in recent decades
(Ryder and Alisauskas 1995; Fig. 3.1). Examination of the occurrence of Ross’s geese in the harvest of the
various Flyways (Fig. 3.2) illustrates the range expansion. Ross’s geese did not occur in the Central Flyway
Fig. 3.1. Left. Primary geographic distribution of greater snow (shaded area) and Ross’s (dotted line) geese.
Right. Primary geographic distribution of lesser snow geese.
Ross‘s
Greater snow
Lesser snow
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 30
harvest survey until 1974, and did not occur in the Mississippi Flyway harvest survey until 1982. The first
occurrence of Ross’s geese in the Atlantic Flyway harvest was in 1996 (Sharp and Moser 1999). The largest
proportion of Ross’s geese winters in the Central Valley of California. Smaller numbers of Ross��s geese
winter in the southwest portion of the Central Flyway, and in Arkansas and Louisiana. Changes in the
distribution of recoveries of banded birds further illustrate the range expansion from the 1950s to the 1990s
(Table 3.1).
Lesser snow geese. — Lesser snow geese breed throughout much of the arctic region of North
America. Additionally, a population that breeds on Wrangel Island, Russia, migrates through Alaska,
western Canada, and several western States (Fig. 3.1). The wintering range of this species is broad, with
birds nesting in the western Arctic tending to winter in the Pacific Flyway, and birds nesting in the central
and eastern Arctic wintering in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (Table 3.1). Small numbers of lesser
snow geese winter in the Atlantic Flyway.
PACIFIC CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI ATLANTIC
Fig. 3.2. Boundaries of administrative Flyways.
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 31
1990-98
(160)
8
63
29
0
(3,603)
<1
63
37
<1
1980s
(9)
0
100
0
0
(9,810)
<1
74
25
<1
1970s
(30)
3
90
7
0
(16,328)
<1
70
30
0
1960s
(7)
29
43
29
0
(8,685)
<1
70
30
0
Eastern Arctic and Subarctic3
1950s
(0)
(3,293)
<1
78
22
0
1990-98
(479)
60
32
8
0
(409)
2
61
37
0
1980s
(45)
87
13
0
0
(34)
0
82
18
0
1970s
(274)
94
5
<1
0
(42)
10
80
10
0
1960s
(279)
96
3
<1
0
(25)
4
88
8
0
Central Arctic2
1950s
(2)
100
0
0
0
(0)
1990-
98
(0)
(334)
87
11
2
0
1980s
(0)
(190)
84
15
1
0
1970s
(0)
(448)
96
4
0
0
1960s
(0)
(648)
95
5
0
0
Western Arctic1
1950s
(0)
(41)
95
5
0
0
Flyway
Pacific
Central
Mississippi
Atlantic
Pacific
Central
Mississippi
Atlantic
Table 3.1. Distribution of legband recoveries for lesser snow and Ross’s geese banded in the western, central, and eastern Arctic by decade, 1950-98. Numbers in parentheses represent sample size for each species by decade.
Recoveries are not weighted by population size, nor are they adjusted for differences in band-reporting rates among Flyways.
Species
Ross’s
Lesser
1 Area between 115o and 140o W longitude, above 65o latitude.
2 Area between 95o and 115o W longitude, above 65o latitude.
3 Area east of 95o W longitude.
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 32
3.1.3 Population Delineation
Waterfowl management activities frequently are based on delineation of populations that are the
focus of management. In most instances, populations are delineated according to where they winter, whereas
others are delineated based on location of their breeding grounds. For management purposes, populations
can be comprised of one or more species of geese that generally breed and/or winter in similar areas. For
example, lesser snow geese and Ross’s geese in the central portion of North America are frequently found in
the same breeding, migration, and wintering areas. Due to these similarities, the term “light goose
population” is used to refer to various populations comprised of both lesser snow geese and Ross’s geese, as
described below. In descriptions of geographic areas, eastern Arctic refers to the area east of approximately
longitude 95 o W; the central Arctic refers to the area between 95o W and approximately 115o W and the
western Arctic refers to the area west of 115o W (Fig. 3.3). Administrative Flyway boundaries also are used
to describe population ranges (Fig. 3.2).
Akimiski Is.
Cape Henrietta Maria
James
Bay
Hudson
Bay
Wrangel
Island
Queen Maud
Gulf
Banks
Island
La Perouse
Bay
Baffin Island
Southampton
Is.
St. Lawrence
River Valley
Bylot
Island
115o 95 o Eastern Arctic
Central Arctic
Western Arctic
Fig. 3.3. Major arctic and subarctic geographic features referenced in text, with approximate 95 and 115
degrees longitude labeled to designate eastern, central and western arctic regions.
Affected Environment
Chapter 3 Light Goose Management FEIS 33
Greater snow geese. — A single population of greater snow geese is recognized in North America.
The population is relatively isolated from other light goose populations, except for potential mixing with
small groups of lesser snow geese in the central portion of the Atlantic Flyway (Fig. 3.1).
Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of light geese.